You welcome my friend.
More detailsNTFS may be faster... - smaller RAM footprint as avoids large FAT held in RAM
- indexed design more efficient for many files per directory
- small file data embedded in dir level, avoids seek to data chain
- above factors make fragmentation less onerous than for FATxx
- 4k cluster size matches processor's natural paging size
...
or slower... - extra overhead of security checks, compression, encryption
- small clusters may fragment data cluster chains
NTFS may be safer... - transaction rollback cleanly undoes interrupted operations
- file-level permissions can protect data against malware etc.
- automatically "fixes" failing clusters on the fly (controversial)
...or more at risk... - no interactive file system checker (a la Scandisk) for NTFS
- no maintenance OS for NTFS
- malware can drill right through NTFS protection, e.g. Witty
- transaction rollback does not preserve user data
- transaction rollback does not help other causes of corruption
- more limited range of maintenance tools
- automatically "fixes" failing clusters on the fly (controversial)
NTFS may be more space-efficient... - smaller cluster size than FAT32 above 8G
- may include data of small files within the directory level
- NTFS's bitmap structure is smaller than FAT32's dual FAT
- sparse files and compression can reduce data space usage
...or less so... - NTFS has large MFT structure
- larger per-file directory metadata space
Either choice, you will win some and lose some but obviously it's easy to make a switch. 
Total Members: 14197
